Opinion on Delay Analysis Method

Disruption and delay seems to be of major importance in today’s construction world. Market pressure requires contractors not only to accept projects with insufficient profit margin but often requires them to price incomplete tenders with a lump sum price and complete the projects in the shortest possible period. For several different reasons this often leads to delays and disruptions caused by either party. If such disruptions or delays occur, the methodology of analyzing it is of major importance. The simple reason behind this is the desire to find an approach  accepted in arbitration and litigation.

I have done some research and compared a number of cases from the last 2 decades in order to identify a methodology that is accepted by the courts and arbitrators. The only common denominator I could identify was that whatever methodology is used, it must be based on facts and common sense. It does not seem that there is a generally acceptable format or methodology recommended for a delay analysis. The below table shows the outcome of the research project.

Case	Time Impact Analysis	Collapsed As-Built	As-Built Critical Path	As-Planned v As-Built	Impacted As-Planned	Common Sense Analysis
McAlpine v McDermott				X		X
John Baker v London Portman Hotel					X	X
Balfour Beatty v Lambeth			X			X
Skanska v Egger						X
Mirant v Ove Arup	X					X
London Underground v Citylink						X
City Inn v Shepherd				X		X
Walter Lilly v Mackay						X